Far-right populism

Tea parties and a Party for Freedom

THE two most consistently fascinating, and most consistently infuriating, email lists I subscribe to are those of Tea Party Nation and Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom (PVV). One thing that's extremely interesting about reading both lists is how similar, on a formal level, their strategies and appeals are. For example, yesterday I got an email from the PVV relaying the questions put to a government minister by one of the PVV's members of parliament, regarding a scandal over an Amsterdam Muslim-oriented community organisation, Asri, that ran a local get-out-the-vote campaign including the message: "Asri calls on everyone to go vote on March 2. The future, or back to 1939." The PVV response, in the form of questions to the Minister of the Interior, under the headline "No subsidies for hate-campaign against the cabinet":

1.) Are you familiar with the article ‘Scandal over expensive hate-campaign against the cabinet'?

2.) Do you agree that it's too crazy for words that the Amsterdam subsidy-slurper Asri shouts out texts like: ‘The future or back to 1939', ‘Vote or die' and characterises the current cabinet as ‘asocial', ‘demotivating' and ‘barbarous'? If not, why not?

3.) Do you agree that slurp-club Asri should have to pay back the nearly 20,000-euro subsidy it received from district Amsterdam-East and its chairperson, Labour Party activist Fatima Elatik? If not, why not?

You'd think a party that attracts voters by calling Islam a backward, totalitarian ideology, openly using the term "rotten Moroccans", and calling for banning the Koran would have some trouble accusing anybody else of a "hate-campaign". But they've got gumption, they're smart, and they know how this stuff works. When a far-right party talks about "rotten Moroccans", they'll vaguely alienate moderates, and they'll create solid anger against them amongst people of Moroccan ancestry, who would never have voted for them anyway and who lack the political power to do much about them. On the other hand, they may provoke the Moroccans to call them "racists" or compare them to Nazis. That's the reaction they're looking for. Being compared to Nazis has an intense solidifying effect on their own voters; anyone who may have voted for them, or considered voting for them, now feels insulted and aggrieved, and no more moderate right-wing party can provide them with a satisfactory retaliation for what they consider the injustice of having been compared to a Nazi. The dynamic a party like the PVV wants to create is us-against-them; comparing them to Nazis helps them solidify that divide and anchor their membership.

It seems important to note, and I think an Anglo-zone audience will probably agree, that comparing a party that terms a major religion a "totalitarian ideology" and advocates banning its holy book to the Nazis is not a wholly absurd rhetorical exercise.

Anyway. Over in America, meanwhile, there are a bunch of smart people who know how this works, too. Earlier this week, they managed to catch an outgoing NPR executive calling the tea-party movement "racist" while talking to two undercover punk-ers dressed up as Muslim advocates of sharia law. In my inbox, Tea Party Nation's Judson Phillips celebrates:

If James O'Keefe were a liberal, he would be a national hero today. If his targets were conservatives, the liberal media establishment would be falling all over themselves to see what they could offer him.

Again, for a far-right political movement, this stuff is pure gold. The sense of aggrievement felt by tea-party adherents and sympathisers at the accusation of racism is very similar to that felt by PVVers at any hint of a reference to Nazism. The involvement of government subsidies provides the hook one needs to turn this into a public issue. The fact that one executive of the organisation says he thinks the tea-party movement is racist becomes the trigger not just for an offensive against an organisation unfriendly to hard-right ideology, but for a further solidification of the us-versus-them recruiting strategy. ("See? The liberal media thinks we're racists.")

The ideological content of these movements is somewhat different from country to country, obviously. They're both generally anti-Muslim, and they're both generally anti-tax. But members of the tea-party movement would surely resent the comparison to the PVV; they would never advocate banning the Koran. (Mostly.) And members of the PVV would surely resent the comparison to the tea-party movement; they would never oppose the right of gay people to marry each other. Still, the formal strategies are very similar, and it's really interesting to see them work.

Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips: "The simple fact is, Muslims hate infidels. Infidels are you and me or anyone who is not Muslim. American ideals of equality and fairness are lost on them." A discussion follows:

"Calling anyone racist Islamaphobes if they are horrified by the actions of a barbarian 7th century culture. This "Proud Infidel" sees the Left and Islam for what they truly are."

"Perhaps it is time to re-start the crusades."

"AMEN brother"

"we should show as much sensitivity as they do. collectively just stop being afraid of being called racist."

"all of the commotion at the airports--TSA--comes from not looking at 'profiles'--young muslim men"

"We must be willing to realize that, like it or not, We, the people, of The United States of America are at war with people whose system of beliefs is more totalitarian and more controlling of more aspects of the lives of its adherents than Marxism ever was. Furthermore, in its almost a millenium and a half history, far more people have been slaughtered in the name of Islam than were murdered by Stalinist communism during the twentieth century."

....

"I have yet to hear ANY MUSLIM step out in public and make noises like a normal human being with normal concerns for his fellow world inhabitants, male and female, all over the world, irrespective of which country they come from."

"There is no such thing as a moderate, peaceful Muslim."

"christianity is not the problem. islam is."

"Can you imagine a "religion" so strong that a Muslim father could even kill his own daughter for wearing Western clothes? Is that a "religion"?"

"As I have said before, carry bacon fat and pigs feet with you!"

"I have heard that some, when they use the name Jesus, spit upon the ground as a sign of contempt. From henceforth I will do the same when I say muslim (spit) !!! Why be polite to those who are hell-bent on destroying America??"

This is basically the deal. People who participate in groups called "Tea Party" do not, by and large, have a fair-minded and tolerant attitude towards Islam.

g cross wrote: Mar 10th 2011 11:34 GMT
"The problem occurs when a group of people is called a name and said group responds not by treating the person using the name as being an idiot but responding as if this should be treated as a threat against the group and/or interpreting this as proof that there is a conspiracy against them. It's the paranoia that's the problem, not the fact that people don't like being called stupid names."

So when a person gets insulted and reacts badly, it is the fault of the person being insulted, and not the person issuing the insult?

g cross wrote: "To the extent that I give his theories credence, it is because they line up with my own personal experience of what conservatives think based on what so many of them (for example, inside this very forum) have to say."

That's part of the reason why there's so little productive discourse between people of different political ideologies.

We assume the worst about our political opponents; it's much easier to write off a caricature than someone with a nuanced view that differs from your own. When we read an editorial that comports with our own world view, we're less inclined to scrutinize its assumptions.

For instance, in this post, you signed right onto M.S.'s dishonest attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist based on a handful of bigoted posts on an internet forum. Why? Because it fits with your cartoonish image of what motivates such people.

I wouldn't say "paranoid", unless you think they're out to get you. I would say "wrong", however, unless you're comparing NPR to other media outlets as opposed to, say, reality. Compared to Fox, NPR is definitely more liberal. Compared to reality, not so much.

NPR certainly makes mistakes (hoo hah! do they ever!), but their listeners are consistently found to be among the least misinformed/best informed of media consumers out there.

@ Lex: "So when a person gets insulted and reacts badly, it is the fault of the person being insulted, and not the person issuing the insult?"

Don't be stupid; I never said any such thing.

When a person gets insulted and responds by punching the insulter in the nose, it is both the fault of the insulter for provoking the person who punched him in the nose and the fault of the puncher for over-reacting to the insult.

Mussolini's fascism was nothing but a retread of his previous efforts as one of the leaders of Italian socialism. And was his conversion unique? Putin and Jiabao are examples of modern Mussolinis.

The difference between socialism and fascism is quibbling over the details - "polishing the turd". Both are statist political movements, dedicated to establishing a monolithic institution that will control society. The members of that institution are its primary beneficiaries and its supporters.

M.S. (The Economist) wrote: Mar 11th 2011 3:46 GMT
"There's basically no difference between "Tea Party adherent" and "conservative Republican". Both groups tend to have negative impressions of Islam, at a considerably higher rate than the American public at large."

Having a negative impression of something does not make you "anti" whatever it is, and certainly doesn't automatically make you "intolerant" or "racist". Assuming for the sake of argument that your numbers are accurate, 67% of Tea Party supporters think Islam is "more likely than other religions to encourage violence." I don't view this is being intolerant of Islam, nor do I view this as being any sort of intentional misrepresentation of Islam on the part of various tea parties.

Islam does advocate "jihad", which most modern, moderate Muslims view as a "spiritual struggle", but there are sects of Islam that advocate "jihad bil saif", or warfare against unbelievers, apostates, and dissenters (in this regard, "jihad" and the medieval christian concept of "crusade" are very similar). As a consequence, it does not strike me as unreasonable that someone outside of Islamic society could read up on Islam and come away with the misimpression that it is more prone to encourage violence. That impression may be incorrect in modern Muslim eyes, but that is not because the reader is intolerant or racist, but more because the concept of "jihad" has violent undertones that some within the Islamic community have acted upon.

Christians can, of course, be violent and intolerant (folks like to cite to the Oklahoma City bombing and the Westboro Baptist Church, for example). However, worldwide, I don't see many stories of christian extremists running around setting off car bombs or blowing themselves up with explosive vests. Perhaps this is what is driving the perception of Islam in the western world, rather than intolerance and racism?

"This is basically the deal. People who participate in groups called "Tea Party" do not, by and large, have a fair-minded and tolerant attitude towards Islam."

Very enlightened of you -- you quote Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips, and then extrapolate his nonsense to every other group with the name "Tea Party" in it. For the record, I don't belong to any group with the name "tea party" in it, but I think it is safe to say that the "Tea Party Nation" is not the universal spokesman for every other group that styles itself as a "tea party".

I think M.S. needs to study up on his logical fallacies -- he can start with "hasty generalization" and work from there.

MS has now resorting to posting comments from an obscure blog post to support his political analysis. From now on my opinion of Democrats will be based solely on what I find when I Google "left wing hate speech."

@ Chesteronian: "For instance, in this post, you signed right onto M.S.'s dishonest attempt to paint the entire Tea Party movement as racist based on a handful of bigoted posts on an internet forum. Why?"

They also lines up with the kinds of things that I have heard them and other conservatives say in other forums and mediums, including face-to-face contact. In particular, I have seen many conservatives/tea-partiers here express and/or defend anti-Muslim sentiments on this forum. Furthermore, I rarely (if ever) have seen this group of people step up to defend Muslims against such sentiments.

These sentiments are also reflected in high-profile political statements and actions such as the hearings on Muslim extremization that are taking place in Congress, so its not like this is a niche group that has no influence.

The impression we have gotten of an anti-Muslim is a widespread one and is more than just an unfair extrapolation from the worst. We might be inaccurate, but we are not intentionally being dishonest.

MS asserts that since conservatives view Islam as MORE LIKELY to encourage violence than other religions they are less "fair-minded and tolerant" of Islam.

That makes a mistaken assumption that that view is in error. Every year thousands and thousands die of religious violence instigated by Muslims, all carried out in the name of Allah. The fact that most of them are fellow Muslims and die in Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Egypt,... and are not Westerners does not make them less dead, or less victims of religious violence. Compared to this, the deaths of a few hundred Christians in Nigeria or a handful in Egypt is trivial. To my knowledge, at least, no other religion today has that track record. Yes, MS, Islam IS more likely to encourage religious violence, as measured by the amount of religious violence carried out by people who do this as Muslims.

The "problem" with conservatives, MS, is that they are not beholden to your shibboliths on political correctness that require you to ignore reality.

Chestertonian, the polling data show no such thing. They show that 67% of Tea Party supporters think Islam is "more likely than other religions to encourage violence"; the average for all Americans is 40%.

There's basically no difference between "Tea Party adherent" and "conservative Republican". Both groups tend to have negative impressions of Islam, at a considerably higher rate than the American public at large.

I frequently hear Conservatives expressing frustration that political correctness prevents us from frankly discussing and addressing the dangers posed by political Islam and its adherents, but I very rarely hear racist or bigoted comments.

"The ideological content of these movements is somewhat different from country to country, obviously. They're both generally anti-Muslim, and they're both generally anti-tax."

Obviously Tea Partiers are anti-tax, though most would probably say they are anti-spending, but what's the evidence they are anti-Muslim? And, while we're at it, what's the evidence to link O'Keefe with the Tea Party? I'd say the author mistakenly conflates the "far right," Conservatives, Republicans and the Tea Party.